Changes in renal function in chronic hepatitis B patients treated initially with entecavir versus tenofovir alafenamide fumarate and related influencing factors
- VernacularTitle:恩替卡韦与富马酸丙酚替诺福韦初治慢性乙型肝炎患者的肾功能变化比较及影响因素分析
- Author:
Shipeng MA
1
;
Yanqing YU
2
;
Xiaoping WU
1
;
Liang WANG
1
;
Liping LIU
1
;
Yuliang ZHANG
1
;
Xin WAN
1
;
Shanfei GE
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords: Hepatitis B， Chronic; Entecavir; Tenofovir Alafenamide; Kidney Injury; Root Cause Analysis
- From: Journal of Clinical Hepatology 2025;41(1):44-51
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
- Abstract: ObjectiveTo investigate the influence of entecavir （ETV） versus tenofovir alafenamide fumarate （TAF） on renal function in previously untreated patients with chronic hepatitis B （CHB）. MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 167 previously untreated CHB patients who received ETV or TAF treatment for at least 48 weeks at the outpatient service of Department of Infectious Diseases in The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from September 2019 to November 2023， and according to the antiviral drug used， they were divided into ETV group with 117 patients and TAF group with 50 patients. In order to balance baseline clinical data， propensity score matching （PSM） was used for matching and analysis at a ratio of 2∶1， and the two groups were compared in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate （eGFR） and the incidence rate of abnormal renal function at week 48. According to eGFR at week 48， the patients were divided into normal renal function group and abnormal renal function group. The independent-samples t test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups， and the chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. The multivariate Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the influencing factors for abnormal renal function， and the receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was used to assess the performance of each indicator in predicting abnormal renal function. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function， and the log-rank test was used for comparison. The analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to compare the dynamic changes of eGFR during antiviral therapy in CHB patients. ResultsAfter PSM matching， there were 100 patients in the ETV group and 50 patients in the TAF group. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical data between the ETV group and the TAF group （all P>0.05）， with an eGFR level of 112.29±9.92 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the ETV group and 114.72±12.15 mL/min/1.73 m2 in the TAF group. There was a reduction in eGFR from baseline to week 48 in both groups， and compared with the TAF group at week 48， the ETV group had a significantly lower eGFR （106.42±14.12 mL/min/1.73 m2 vs 112.25±13.44 mL/min/1.73 m2， t=-2.422， P=0.017） and a significantly higher incidence rate of abnormal renal function （17.00% vs 4.00%， χ2=5.092， P=0.024）. After the patients were divided into normal renal function group with 131 patients and abnormal renal function group with 19 patients， the univariate analysis showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in age （Z=-2.039， P=0.041）， treatment drug （ETV/TAF） （χ2=5.092， P=0.024）， and baseline eGFR level （t=4.023， P<0.001）， and the multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that baseline eGFR （odds ratio ［OR］=0.896， 95% confidence interval ［CI］： 0.841 — 0.955， P<0.001） and treatment drug （OR=5.589， 95%CI： 1.136 — 27.492， P=0.034） were independent influencing factors for abnormal renal function. Baseline eGFR had an area under the ROC curve of 0.781 in predicting abnormal renal function in CHB patients， with a cut-off value of 105.24 mL/min/1.73 m2， a sensitivity of 73.68%， and a specificity of 82.44%. The Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed that the patients with baseline eGFR≤105.24 mL/min/1.73 m2 had a significantly higher cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function than those with baseline eGFR>105.24 mL/min/1.73 m2 （χ2=22.330， P<0.001）， and the ETV group had a significantly higher cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function than the TAF group （χ2=4.961， P=0.026）. With the initiation of antiviral therapy， both the ETV group and the TAF group had a significant reduction in eGFR （F=5.259， P<0.001）， but the ETV group only had a significant lower level of eGFR than the TAF group at week 48 （t=-2.422， P=0.017）； both the baseline eGFR≤105.24 mL/min/1.73 m2 group and the baseline eGFR>105.24 mL/min/1.73 m2 group had a significant reduction in eGFR （F=5.712， P<0.001）， and there was a significant difference in eGFR between the two groups at baseline and weeks 12， 24， 36， and 48 （t=-13.927， -9.780， -8.835， -9.489， and -8.953， all P<0.001）. ConclusionFor CHB patients initially treated with ETV or TAF， ETV antiviral therapy has a higher risk of renal injury than TAF therapy at week 48.
